> > * specifying libraries in the source isn't the right way to
> > go. Library names change independently of APIs, and can be
> > platform-specific.
>> I like the high level goal this is heading towards and was in complete
> agreement with implementing it in rules like this until....
> I realised that
> all that Hugs sees is the source (i.e., there's no makefile
> to put extra
> compilation info into) - so if it ain't in the source, where is it?
>> But I like the rule...
Well... there's no reason why hugs couldn't use something like GHC's
packages. In fact, it could use the scheme largely unchanged; but
perhaps the package spec should be extended to include a path to source
files (the alternative is to overload the path to the interface files
and put the sources in the same place if you want to share a package
between Hugs & GHC).
The package spec format is designed to be used with "read" (i.e. it's
Haskell syntax), so Hugs could just read it using its built-in parser.
Cheers,
Simon